Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 62052 of 2015
Petitioner :- Constable 534 Civil Police Chandra Pal Singh & 11 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amar Nath Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioners are claiming promotion on the post of Head Constable Special Grade Civil Police without taking recourse under the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal_ Rules, 1991. In respect of their claim the petitioners are stated to have preferred a representation before the authorities on 06.01.2015. The alleged representation, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition does not show any receiving that it has been sent through registered post.
This writ petition is therefore not maintainable in view of the decisions in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1975 SC 460 and the Supreme Court has in paragraph 24 held as under:
"24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi- judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under the Article 226 are not strictly confine4d to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognized rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applied in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied for us, as it is in England, when a writ of Mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England. As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal." Similarly, in the case of Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector, C.E.C.Revenue AIR 1975 Supreme Court 538 in which the Supreme Court in paragraph 25 has held as under:-
"25. In the petition of K.N.Kapur and others, we do not even find an assertion that any representation was made against any violation of a petitioner's right. Hence, the rule recognized by this Court in Kamini Kumar Das v. State of
1
West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2060 at p.2065 that a demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for direction or Writ of Mandamus, would also operate against the petitioners." In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners may approach the respondents first before approaching the Court.
Order Date :- 5.11.2015 N Tiwari
2